A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE CONFERENCE

The fisheries highway navigated by delegates over the last three years has been a turbulent
one, often rocked by coastal State ambitions to promote "creeping jurisdiction" over the
resources of the high seas. Many of the arguments, for and against this move were
rehearsed much as they were during the UNCLOS negotiations which created the EEZ
regime. A number of actors negotiating at the Conference were veterans of the UNCLOS
era, but their egos were often stymied by objective "young turks" who, perhaps conscious
of the wider environmental agenda, were better able to appreciate the range of linked
environmental issues. It was not surprising therefore to see issues of transparency, the
rights of fishers, the precautionary approach and obligatory data collection constituted as
new principles of high seas fisheries conservation and management.

THE COASTAL STATE-FLAG STATE DIVIDE: From beginning to end
the Conference, negotiations were conducted between these two groups. The DWFNs
consisting of the EU, China, Japan, Korea and Poland, were ranged against "the rest" who
were led by the like-minded core group consisting of Argentina, Canada, Chile, Iceland,
New Zealand, Norway and Peru, later joined by Indonesia. The coastal State caucus
sought to secure enhanced coastal State jurisdiction over the resources of the high seas,
while the DWFNs fought against any such "creeping jurisdiction" by the coastal States.
Even up until the eleventh hour of negotiations, the Latin Americans wanted such
enhanced jurisdiction. In each of the principle caucus groups certain divisions existed, and
the only caucus group with a unified voice was the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency.

THE PIVOTAL ROLE OF THE CHAIR: Identifying the "Friends of the
Chair" was never an easy task. Perhaps all was revealed in the Chair's closing statement
when Satya Nandan expressly thanked four of his colleagues from the Pacific region
representatives from the Australia, the FFA, Fiji and New Zealand  whose assistance
he said had been "unstinting and selfless." The role of the Chair was never an easy one.
The return of Iceland's skillful Amb. Gudmundur Eiriksson to the Conference appeared
to assist the Chair in some of the more difficult informal consultations. The Chair, as a
veteran of the UNCLOS, had a special relationship with many of the delegates present, but
his entrepreneurial style, embodying pragmatism and an unselfish desire to steer the
Conference through uncharted waters did much to warm delegates to his personal style of
negotiation. Nandan's own special contribution was warmly applauded by individual
delegates and Conference as a whole at the sessions conclusion.